David Poehlman wrote:
> Who said what? I already knew what I said so waiding through
> it was a tile killer.
Right. But *you* wrote it. It was time killer for one person on this list,
but possibly not for everyone else that might read the message tomorrow, or
see in the web-based archive, or view the message out of context.
> I did say intellegently. If the
> poster is clear enough in the top post, the quoted portion of
> the message does not have to be read
Can you define "clear enough"? For whom? In what context? When? Right now as
we read these posts, two Mondays from now when Susan gets back from
vacation? Three months from now when someone searches for "benefits of
top-posting" via Google and ends up in this discussion on the web based
archive?
> I know that some times, it is necessary to interleave responses into
> a message and I can live with that even though it is
> difficult to deal with.
OK -- now we are getting somewhere. I'm genuinely trying to understand your
point of view here David, because we obviously disagree on the issue. What
is it about it that makes it difficult to deal with?
> I have been working with top posting since 1992.
I've been working with email just as long, and from the beginning, its
always been the other way around. How or why did you first start with top
posting? Was it something that just happened? Based on research? Conventions
of the communities you were communicating with? Again, I'm very curious, and
serious about the question. My habits of not top-posting comes from Usenet,
and Usenet convention is quote and respond. Doing the same for email only
seemed natural to me.
Best regards,
Derek.
--
Derek Featherstone feather@wats.ca
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)